4.7 Article

Numerical study of bifurcation blood flows using three different non-Newtonian constitutive models

期刊

APPLIED MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 529-549

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2020.06.066

关键词

Stabilized finite element method; Carotid; Non-Newtonian fluid; Carreau-Yasuda fluid; Cross fluid; Power-law fluid

资金

  1. University of Santiago de Chile [USA1899]
  2. Chilean Council for Scientific and Technological Research [CONICYT-FONDECYT 11160160]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, a variational multiscale finite element formulation is used to study bifurcation flows of non-Newtonian fluids, using a representative simplified Carotid Artery geometry. In particular, the flow pattern and wall shear stress (WSS) computed using power-law, Cross, and Carreau-Yasuda models, are assessed. First, the formulation is validated by contrasting simulations of a benchmark test for bifurcation flows reported in the literature. After that, a study of blood flow through the carotid artery is presented. Hemodynamics conditions aimed to describe the flow behavior from diastole to systole of the cardiac cycle for healthy arteries and two specific conditions (60% carotid stenosis due to atherosclerosis and 20% increased bifurcation angle due to aging), are specifically analyzed. For each condition, the hemodynamics present different velocity fields that lead to distinctive distribution of WSS enable us to classified three regions, depending on their magnitude: low-WSS, medium-WSS and high-WSS. Results show that power-law flows predict lower wall shear stresses, especially in sections where geometry concentrates stresses, compared to those predicted using Cross and Carreau-Yasuda models. Overall, low-WSS are usually present in zones where stenosis develops even in healthy arteries, however, both geometries lead to a decrease of WSS magnitude in low-WSS regions, increasing the risk factor associated with plaque building. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据